Appeal 2007-1169
Application 09/850,857
able to follow the teachings of the prior art and employ an
impact modifier for its known effect?
Has Applicant demonstrated that the Examiner was incorrect in
requiring evidence of an unobvious difference between the
claimed triwall product formed by multi-manifold coextrusion
and the prior art triwall product formed by flow block or feed
block coextrusion?
FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Applicant’s ‘857 Specification
1) Applicant’s claims on appeal are directed to a panel having three
layers with a center layer coextruded with the inner and outer layers through
a multi-manifold die. (Br. Claims Appendix e.g., Independent Claim 1).
2) Applicant’s claims require that the inner and outer layers have
an impact modifier. (Id.).
3) The Background section of Applicant’s specification teaches that
there is considerable commercial interest in “durable, lightweight building
materials which are impact and weather resistant.” (Specification p. 2, ll.
14-15).
B. The Prior Art
1. Heilmayr, U.S. Pat. 4,911,628
4) Heilmayr describes a highly uniform three-layer extrusion for siding
and paneling, preferably formed of PVC. (Heilmayr, Abstract).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013